Just becouse it have Shader Model 3.0 SUPPORT doesnt mean that the game now suddenly contain Shader Model 3.0 features. Would Half-Life 1 go faster with Shader Model 2.0 support? Definitly noth, becouse Half-Life 1 do not contain any Shader Model 2.0 objects in the first place. To have any use, a game must be *designed* with Shader Model 3.0 in mind. Its not something you add afterwards, unless you rebuild all models and maps in the game.

However, I can agree that it was misleading by Nvidia to release thoose images as they might suggest that Far Cry Retail actually have maps/models with that kind of quality... something that would only be enabled if using SM3.0... Far Cry doesnt. Far Cry is and will always be designed with 2.0 in mind. Nothing more to see here, move along.

Brent did a great job on that article, I liked it.

"SM3.0 makes not only your SM2.0 shaders run faster and more efficiently but also allows you to make your shaders more complex without increasing the workload dramatically." Like you are saying yourself, its not about visual impact, its about more-of-the-same-at-one-time. The amount of shaders in Far Cry today is balanced for using 2.0, so the game needs a 2.0 capable graphiccard to not become a bottleneck (like 5900fx). SM3.0 greatest advantage (if I havnt missed something) is the ability to push more shaders at one time. Since the amount of shaders used in Far Cry was balanced for PS2.0, there isnt enough shaders used in the game to take advantage of SM3.0. If the game was remade to use enough shaders to require SM3.0, PS2.0 would start to become a bottleneck while SM3.0 would decrease the workload dramatically.

Let me try that again: Far Cry is produced to take advantage of Pixel Shader 2.0. Thus, you need at least Pixel Shader 2.0 to play it in full glory. FX5900 lacked proper Pixel Shader 2.0, which became a serious bottleneck, drastically reducing the framerate, and the visual quality. The main advantage of PS3.0 is to push more and more complex shaders on screen at any one time. Far Cry was produced for 2.0. The amount of shaders used in the game is just about enough to take advantage of a 2.0 capable graphiccard. While a heavy amount of shaders is used compared with other modern games, they are only as many as PS2.0 compatible hardware can handle. Unlike 1.1 vs 2.0, there is no bottleneck that can be adressed using 3.0 over 2.0. Far Cry 1.3 does not increase the amount of shaders used up to a level where PS3.0 is required. It simply new fuel for an old game. Thus, the visual and speed impact with having 3.0 support in a 2.0 balanced game is not great. This tests is not meant to show off PS3.0 over PS2.0 in general gaming. The differences in theese tests is probably more a case of fixing up some bugs with the heavily FX5900 optimized engine. Optimizations that must be removed for 6800 to work as intended.

must say the HDR looks great... Would like to see the game running on 1600*1200 Highest settings 16xAF with HDR 7 enabled on an SLI system... (because this will probably be the only system that can handle that with decent frame rates.)